Joe Barton

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, my question is, If you do not agree with the language but you agree with the concept, is there going to be alternative language offered by the Democrat minority?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise in strong support of the rule to bring up the tax limitation amendment this evening for floor consideration. I would like to point out, under the rule the minority party has an opportunity to offer a substitute if they so wish. So, if they have a problem with specific language in the amendment, they will be given an opportunity to offer their own language. It is my understanding they are not going to do so. The distinguished member, the ranking member of the Committee on Rules, Mr. Moakley, said in his remarks earlier that this is irresponsible. I would take exception to that and say, Mr. Speaker, that this is the most responsible thing we could do on tax day, 1996. For over 125 years of this Nation's history, we had tax limitation in the Constitution. It was not a supermajority vote requirement, it was a requirement that all tax bills had to originate in the House of Representatives, that are the people's body most closely related to the people and elected for 2-year terms. Unfortunately, in 1913 we passed the 16th amendment to the Constitution that said an income tax was constitutional. The marginal tax rate in that first income tax bill in 1913 was 1 percent. Today it is 39.8 percent. That is an increase of 4,000 percent in the marginal tax rate on the American people. In 1913, less than 1/ 10th of 1 percent of the American people had to pay ever 1 percent. Today, literally every American working has to pay some sort of income tax, and as we speak on the floor, 10 minutes after 5, April 15, 1996, it is 10 after 4 in Texas, 10 after 3 in Colorado, 10 after 2 in California, there are millions of American taxpayers, one-third of all American taxpayers do not file their tax return until the last 2 weeks. There are millions of Americans as we speak scrambling to fill out their taxes, to file an extension, to understand the Tax Code, and every one of those, I think, with almost no exception, is saying my taxes are too high. Sixty percent of working families in this country, both spouses have to work. Of those that are single-parent families, over half of them have to have two jobs. Is it not time to say enough is enough? A 4,000 percent increase on working Americans in their marginal tax rate should be enough for even the biggest-spending liberal in this body. Let us vote for the two-thirds tax limitation later this evening, send it to the Senate, send it to the States, where three-fourths of them are necessary to ratify it, and begin to focus where we should have focused on all along, and that is on spending limitation, not on tax increases.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude very quickly by stating that this is about helping us to get to a balanced budget. The last balanced budget of the U.S. Government was in 1969. My son was born in 1970. He is now about to enter graduate school. He has never lived in a year that we have balanced the Federal budget. There are two ways to balance the budget. You can cut spending or raise taxes. We think, those of us who support this amendment, we should do it by emphasizing spending cuts, not tax increases. Federal revenues have grown every year since 1964. The 10 years that I have been in the Congress, they have grown an average of $59 billion a year, $59 billion a year. The problem is that spending has grown more rapidly than revenues. The tax limitation amendment is simply a mechanism to make it more difficult to raise taxes and, therefore, easier to focus on spending reduction or spending limitation, which is what we should do in order to balance the budget. This House and this Senate sent to the President of the United States a 7-year comprehensive budget that would have balanced in 7 years with no tax increases. The President vetoed the Balanced Budget bill we sent him. If we get a supermajority requirement into our Constitution, future Congresses will be able to work with future Presidents and focus on spending limitation, not on tax increases, as a way to balance the budget.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, that phone number is 202-225-3121, for those who wish to call the House switchboard.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I see the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from the great State of New York [Mr. Solomon], on the floor. Would he like to engage in the debate?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I think one of the other concerns under the current tax code, most Republicans and far-thinking Democrats support a rate reduction in the capital gains tax. What is the gentleman's understanding of what we could do with capital gains, if our amendment were to become part of the Constitution?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I think that is a very basic point that we need to emphasize as often as possible. Under the language that is going to be voted on this evening, we could change from a national income tax, graduated system that we have today, to the flat tax or the national sales tax, as some people propose, with a majority vote so long as the revenue impact was de minimis, was neutral or less.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. My understanding is the gentleman speaking is from the great State of Arizona and that you have a two-thirds or three-fourths requirement for all tax increases in your State and that has been in effect since 1992. Is that correct?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I thank both my two good friends for supporting this. I would like to continue some of the comments that I made earlier. This is about making it more difficult to raise taxes, but not making it impossible. When my good friend from Arizona gets back, we are going to go through a colloquy on some of the tax increases that have passed the House in the last 10 to 15 years. One very good thing about our amendment: It would take bipartisan support to pass any additional tax increases because it is very unlikely that either political party is going to have 67 percent of the House and the Senate at the same time in the modern era, and as has been pointed out numerous times during the debate this afternoon, the last major tax increase that we had 2\1/2\ years ago passed by two votes in the House, with no Republican voting for it, and by a tie breaker vote the Vice President, Mr. Gore, voting for it in the Senate. That is not bipartisanship, that is one political party with a very slim majority forcing a massive tax increase, in this case the largest tax increase in American history, down the throats of the American people. I would now like to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from Arizona about some of the more recent major tax increases that have been before the House and the Senate.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Be happy to yield to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Hall] and then----

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Well, I think it is interesting that when you really look at the facts and you look at the data that is out there, every State that has it, it works. We pointed out, you pointed out, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Hall] pointed out, that taxes are lower, they grow slower, and that the economy, therefore, grows faster and more jobs are created. We point out that regardless of what your party affiliation is, it is supported anywhere from 80 to 64 percent. Regardless of your socioeconomic status, low, middle, or high, it is supported. More States are adding this tax limitation provision to their State constitutions every year. Voters of Nevada have already passed it once. Their constitution requires two separate votes. they are going to vote on it again this fall. We think they will ratify it and they will be the eleventh State to put it in the constitution. There are some dozen, dozen and a half, States that have got initiatives underway, so we are simply doing what is already being done and continuing to be done in the States, and I think that with your support and the support of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Hall] we have an excellent chance to get enough Democrat support to pass it by two- thirds on the floor this evening.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I am sure that you have seen this study, but you might not have had a chance to really study it in detail, but March 19 through March 21 there was a national poll conducted by Americans for Tax Reform. They polled 1,205 registered voters throughout the country about the tax limitation amendment, and I know that you will find this very gratifying to know that of those poll respondents that identified, self-identified, themselves as Democrats, 64 percent said they supported the two-thirds tax limitation amendment; 80 percent of people that identified themselves as Independents and 80 percent that identified themselves as Republican. So the support is slightly higher for Republicans and Independents, but for Democrats around the country 64 percent of the respondents in this 1,200-person poll that said they were Democrats said they supported the amendment. And I know as a Democrat you will also be delighted to know that when they asked the poll respondents to identify themselves by socioeconomic status, low, middle class, or high income, of those that identified themselves as low-income wage earners, 80 percent supported two-thirds vote for tax limitation; middle income, self-identified, 77 percent supported tax limitation; and high income, 64 percent. And finally, certainly last but not least, when asked the one political question in this survey, and again these are 1,200 people, March 19 through 21, national poll, plus or minus 2.8 percent variance--when asked would you be more likely or less likely to vote for your Member of Congress if you knew that they voted for the two-thirds tax limitation amendment, by party identification 76--no, 68 percent of self-identified Democrats, said that they would be more likely to vote for their Member of Congress if they knew that he or she had voted for the two-thirds tax limitation constitutional amendment. Does the gentleman from Texas have any comments on those poll numbers?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. And how has this worked in Arizona the 3 years it has been on the books?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I know that some Members of this body have said that this is some sort of a Republican policy gimmick. But you are not a Republican, obviously. I think you are very proud to be a Democrat.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Well, if the gentleman would remain at the podium, I have got a few questions that I would like to ask. My first question is, I believe that you are a member of the Democratic Party, is that not correct?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to another of our original sponsors, Mr. Pete Geren of the 12th District of Texas, who unfortunately will be leaving us at the end of this Congress to return home to Fort Worth.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I thank the gentleman, Mr. Goodling, for those remarks. Would the chair indicate how much time is remaining in our special order?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I thank the distinguished gentleman from Texas. Before I yield to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Pete Geren, I yield to the chairman of the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities, the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Goodling.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I thank the gentleman from Kentucky. I yield to the gentleman, Mr. Hall of Texas, one of the named sponsors, the distinguished gentleman from Rockwall, the fourth district of Texas.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. It is my understanding that Arkansas has had a tax limitation on amendment on the books for several decades. It requires a three-fourths vote; not a two-thirds, but even a higher standard of three-fourths. Could you comment on how that has worked in Arkansas?